User talk:F6CTE

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID)


The article Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:OR; obviously some kind of thesis, essay or dissertation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID)
I have nominated Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Reed Solomon Identifier (RSID). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ironholds (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section in colliding beam fusion article
Hi,

I have removed the content you inserted into the colliding beam fusion article about your fusion reactor concept. While that is the right article, and the right place to put it (most new editors insert things at random locations), the content in question is well below the "notability" requirement for the Wikipedia.

Basically, content on the Wikipedia has to be mentioned in multiple independant credible publications in order to demonstrate that it meets some basic definition of "notable". For instance, if someone writes an article in the local newspaper about the band your next-door neighbour's kids started in their basement, that is not notable and it is highly likely they will never be heard from again. On the other hand, if that same band plays a sold-out concert that results in mentions in Le Monde and Libération, then they have definitely been noticed, and an article on them is a good idea.

The content you inserted into the CBR article consists solely of a single proposal published by you on the web. That is not notable - by definiton - as no one else has noted it. I did by best googling, and couldn't find a single mention of the work anywhere that wasn't pointing back to that proposal. To reach the required threshold, other people are going to have to write about it in known publications. In contrast, it's trivially easy to find many mentions of both the migma and TAE devices mentioned in the article in well-known sources, both scientific and lay. So they do meet the notability criterion.

I suspect that your ultimate aim is to actually build one of these, which will likely cause it to be mentioned. It might also pick up some interest in the scientific literature by other authors. I encourage you to do both! When that time comes, contact me and we'll add the section back in.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the same information again. Please do not reinsert edits when others object (see WP:bold, revert, discuss). You can discuss edits at Talk:colliding beam fusion to try to find consensus. You will probably not find consensus to include it unless you can show there are independent secondary sources about the concept. Femke (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Three revert warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)